UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[notsure]

I still don't understand why the insulin poisoning of child F was not investigated further at the time, though, in August 2015. Surely that was a failing in the hospital, not to follow up why that had happened.

 

[CS2C]

I feel ridiculously torn, I didn’t feel this at all until I went there today. When I look at the evidence and how it is presented it is so damming (even if circumstantial) and she has no answers to the most important questions but I feel weird after what I experienced today. It is almost as if you are watching a intelligent yet incredibly naive person trying to navigate everything that is being thrown at them. I do not envy the jury.

 

[Lincoln34]

To tell her side of the story and fight for her life, I suppose.

If you somebody who likes control / is a tad on the narcissistic side you might well want to take the stand IMO , even if advised otherwise by counsel.

 

[katydid23]

I’ve posted them already upthread. One was in the podcast for baby O. Was the father who said it. He said it was definitely swelling which I would think is him Saying he saw it.

I know all your points just think it must be difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a baby that’s all, think all that care would likely be innate rather than learned. The last point though, you wou need empathy to know when it is appropriate to apologise without prompting, showing an understanding of impact on others.

NO, the father said he 'saw the swelling' ----but did not say he saw it happening , from no swelling to seeing it swell up.

He said he saw the swelling, in other words, the child's tummy was different than when he last saw it.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

What is the point of taking the stand if a person just says:
"I don't remember/recall/have no memory of the event"?

I would think the cross examination might be the chance to clear things, not to muddle them further.

JMO

She may feel like she has to take the stand because otherwise the jury can draw adverse inferences from her decision not to testify.

And I think that it is probably safer for someone to say “I don’t remember” if they are anything less than certain that what they are saying is the truth (or cannot be proved not to be the truth ) because otherwise, they run the very real risk of being caught out in a lie by a legal eagle who is constantly on the lookout for such things. I think we only have to look at the reaction of people when LL says something more definitive which is then contradicted by NJ producing some document: it turns into a real “gotcha” moment.
As onlookers, I suspect we and the jury get a much more negative impression of an accused when those events happen compared to the general ennui we all experience when she gives non committal answers or says she can’t remember .

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. For murder you just need to show there was intent to cause serious (grievous bodily) harm.

For attempted murder you need to show intention to kill though.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[Jazmania]

That's exactly what I said.

Okay sorry I must have misread.

 

[katydid23]

So there is no court today? Something about a juror having surgery?


ETA:
Found it:
https://twitter.com/lizhull


Liz Hull
Latest episode of
@LucyLetbyTrial
is out now…the court has just been adjourned for the day due to juror sickness and will not reconvene until Wednesday

 

[Jazmania]

I do feel that the ridiculously overdrawn nature of this cross examination is helpful to Letby, and not helpful to the prosecution. The KC built a real momentum at the start imo, discrediting Letby completely by her answers to the handover notes issue, before moving onto the babies and showing how her story could literally change from one day to the next. Her memory seems to also change, from not recalling a baby at all to suddenly being able to recall in detail where they were before a baby collapsed. But now that momentum is broken, and when she says 'I don't recall' about something she said in court before, it no longer comes across as ridiculous because to be honest it might have been so long ago that it's no wonder she doesn't recall.

No idea how her flip flopping and memory issues come across to the jury, but people are notoriously bad at telling whether someone is lying from observing their demeanour, tone of voice, body language etc. You have to rely on the content of what they're saying, whether it makes sense, and whether it is consistent with what they've said in the past to infer lying.

 

[notsure]

If you somebody who likes control / is a tad on the narcissistic side you might well want to take the stand IMO , even if advised otherwise by counsel.

True. I guess we don't know if she was advised not to take the stand?

 

[Tortoise]

With regard to baby K, and LL's changing evidence, I think the upshot of her saying she has no memory of the incident with Dr Jayaram is that his evidence that she was there next to the cot when he walked in isn't disputed. So I don't think her answers have worked in her favour, as she can no longer claim in closing argument that his account of finding her there was not true. JMO


It wasn't put to Dr Jayaram during his evidence that LL wasn't in the nursery.

The defence case was originally that baby K wasn't sedated.


In her evidence in chief she disputed she was there:

"Was there a time when you were in the nursery and [the consultant] came in to find you close to Child K?"

"No."

Lucy Letby trial live: Nurse accused of murdering seven babies denies 'poisoning' child with insulin in 'targeted attack'

In her early cross-exam she said:

"When was the first time you said that, Lucy Letby?" he asks, to which the defendant says she wouldn't know a definitive date.
"I'm going to suggest a date to you - yesterday."
Mr Johnson adds: "I am going to suggest to you that when [the doctor] was cross examined by [defence barrister Ben Myers KC] on your behalf, that suggestion was never made."

Lucy Letby trial live: Nurse accused of murdering seven babies denies 'poisoning' child with insulin in 'targeted attack'

Mr Myers rises says it was put to Dr Jayaram that he had not been challenged on his account in evidence. He said in his evidence he had put it repeatedly to Dr Jayaram on his account, although the word 'liar' might not have been used.
The judge says, from his recollection, it was not put directly to Dr Jayaram if Letby was present in the nursery room.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, May 17 - defence continues


In her cross-exam yesterday she said she had no memory:


Mr Johnson asks if Letby was asked to oversee Child K.
"I have no memory of that," Letby says.
"But do you dispute the evidence it was you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't know how I can answer that," she says, adding that if she can't remember she cannot say if someone else's recollection is right.

Lucy Letby trial live: Nurse accused of murdering seven babies denies 'poisoning' child with insulin in 'targeted attack'


Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz

NJKC: "Do you dispute that you were standing over baby K when Dr Jayaram came in?"
LL: "I have no recollection"
NJKC "That the oxygen monitor was down into the 80s?"
LL: "I have no memory of it"
NJKC: "That the alarm wasn’t sounding?"
LL: "I can’t answer because I can’t remember"


11:45 AM · Jun 5, 2023

 

[katydid23]

I do feel that the ridiculously overdrawn nature of this cross examination is helpful to Letby, and not helpful to the prosecution. The KC built a real momentum at the start imo, discrediting Letby completely by her answers to the handover notes issue, before moving onto the babies and showing how her story could literally change from one day to the next. Her memory seems to also change, from not recalling a baby at all to suddenly being able to recall in detail where they were before a baby collapsed. But now that momentum is broken, and when she says 'I don't recall' about something she said in court before, it no longer comes across as ridiculous because to be honest it might have been so long ago that it's no wonder she doesn't recall.

No idea how her flip flopping and memory issues come across to the jury, but people are notoriously bad at telling whether someone is lying from observing their demeanour, tone of voice, body language etc. You have to rely on the content of what they're saying, whether it makes sense, and whether it is consistent with what they've said in the past to infer lying.

Even though it is drawn out, the jury has heard case after case, incident after incident, of a child suddenly collapsing. And in each incident, LL starts by denying she was around the child or near the child right before the collapse, or says she can't recall. . But after some verbal exchanges with NJ, she eventually concedes and 'accepts' that she was the last nurse to feed or medicate the child.

Those incidents are like bricks, being stacked one by one. Even though the days of testimony are few and far between, those stacks of collapse incidents are piling up for the jurors. Even if LL says " I don't recall' ---it ultimately doesn't matter because the Prosecution has observation notes from her colleagues and testimony from parents and also messages LL sent back and forth at the time, which corroborate the states timeline of events.

So it doesn't even matter if the jury thinks she is lying or not about being able to remember. Because at the end of each case testimony, LL is accepting that she was at the crucial cot at the crucial time, no matter whether she initially remembered or admitted to it or not. Eventually she has conceded to each one, when she is shown observation notes, or her signature on a med request, or testimony by a colleague which puts here there.

I really think that the large amount of collapses is going to really stand out and make it obvious that these were not just naturally occurring medical problems with innocent explanations. Allegedly. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I do feel that the ridiculously overdrawn nature of this cross examination is helpful to Letby, and not helpful to the prosecution. The KC built a real momentum at the start imo, discrediting Letby completely by her answers to the handover notes issue, before moving onto the babies and showing how her story could literally change from one day to the next. Her memory seems to also change, from not recalling a baby at all to suddenly being able to recall in detail where they were before a baby collapsed. But now that momentum is broken, and when she says 'I don't recall' about something she said in court before, it no longer comes across as ridiculous because to be honest it might have been so long ago that it's no wonder she doesn't recall.

No idea how her flip flopping and memory issues come across to the jury, but people are notoriously bad at telling whether someone is lying from observing their demeanour, tone of voice, body language etc. You have to rely on the content of what they're saying, whether it makes sense, and whether it is consistent with what they've said in the past to infer lying.

The prosecution has, on many occasions, pulled up her testimony on direct. They also have her police interview answers and her defence statement written in 2022 to bring her back to.

She doesn't really get a pass of not remembering on cross, if she's made earlier statements of recall only a month or a few weeks ago. IMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I do feel that the ridiculously overdrawn nature of this cross examination is helpful to Letby, and not helpful to the prosecution. The KC built a real momentum at the start imo, discrediting Letby completely by her answers to the handover notes issue, before moving onto the babies and showing how her story could literally change from one day to the next. Her memory seems to also change, from not recalling a baby at all to suddenly being able to recall in detail where they were before a baby collapsed. But now that momentum is broken, and when she says 'I don't recall' about something she said in court before, it no longer comes across as ridiculous because to be honest it might have been so long ago that it's no wonder she doesn't recall.

No idea how her flip flopping and memory issues come across to the jury, but people are notoriously bad at telling whether someone is lying from observing their demeanour, tone of voice, body language etc. You have to rely on the content of what they're saying, whether it makes sense, and whether it is consistent with what they've said in the past to infer lying.

I agree, I found it particularly frustrating when NJ was cut off on the Thursday when LL said she couldn’t concentrate after she made her IMO Freudian slip.. the whole ‘I knew what I was looking for…at’ and NJ asked her what she meant by looking for and she replied something like ‘I don’t mean it like that, I’m struggling to concentrate’ suddenly court was ajourned and that was that. NJ (not surprisingly) lost his momentum as there was then a week long break due to juror issues and never got to question her further on her choice of words. Had the court not suddenly been ajourned I believe NJ would have pressed further and suggested that LL was looking for signs of collapse. IMO that was unfair to the prosecution to suddenly stop at such a crucial moment in cross.

Another time she asked for a break and they stopped for lunch but never returned for an unknown reason that jurors were told they ‘shouldn’t concern themselves with’. I notice how LL didn’t have this sudden need for a break when BM was questioning her on direct, but now it’s cross there’s been a few instances where it’s been obvious to me that she’s wanted to stop due to not liking where NJ is going with his questioning. She chose to take the stand so should therefore have to answer any and all questions put to her, asking for breaks when you get a bit flustered or caught lying isn’t fair atall.

Now we have yet another delay, it’s IMO difficult for the jury to follow such disjointed questioning when there’s no rhythm. It makes it harder to link everything together. NJ is doing a brilliant job even with all the delays and hold ups since he started cross examination, however I think the delays are harming the effectiveness of the evidence. Having a day here, half a day there, the evidence of just how many coincidences LL claims there was doesn’t have the same impact IMO.

Hearing someone contradict themselves over and over on consecutive days has much more of an impact than hearing a couple of discrepancies then having to wait up to a week to hear more evidence.

I’ve never seen this before, I remember Jodi Arias being in the stand for 18 days in total and that seemed a long time then. But this? This is just getting ridiculous and isn’t fair to either side IMO. I also don’t hold out hope that the trial will continue tomorrow, if it does then I think we may be down to 11 jurors.

All MOO

 

[katydid23]

The prosecution has, on many occasions, pulled up her testimony on direct. They also have her police interview answers and her defence statement written in 2022 to bring her back to.

She doesn't really get a pass of not remembering on cross, if she's made earlier statements of recall only a month or a few weeks ago. IMO

Here is an example of her 'not being able to recall' not helping her on the stand----
This is an excerpt from Episode 37, about Baby K:

Dr J helped deliver Baby K, and several hours later he believed he interrupted LL trying to murder her by dislodging her breathing tube so NJ asked her about this:


Q: Are you saying you weren’t with Baby K at 3:50 am when Dr J says you were standing over her when she desaturated?


LL: I have no recollection


Q: Are you saying Dr J made that up, it’s untrue?


LL: I don’t think I can comment on whether he made it up- I have no memory of being in there at that time and having a conversation with Dr J


Q: Do you dispute it?


LL: I think that’s difficult when I have no memory. I don’t recall any of that happening. I think I would remember if I had been present


Mr Johnson accused her of trying to bolster her defense by claiming that the Countess had been taking babies that were too small that should have been cared for elsewhere.


LL: I understand why she was born there, but I don’t agree it was right or had to be that way


Q: You don’t accept the agreed evidence that to transfer her mother was a greater risk than to transfer Baby J?


LL: That’s an obstretric decision-I can’t comment on it-I don’t really understand what you’re asking me


Mr Johnson reminded her that Baby K’s oxygen levels dropped and her breathing tube had to be changed three times in the hours after she was born. The 1st time was @ 10 am, the 2nd @ quarter past 6 and the 3rd just after half past 7.


LL said she had no memory of any desaturations or what happened to Baby K, but suggested her breathing tube had not been secured appropriately because she had not been sedated and had moved it herself


Mr Johnson said that timestamped computer records showed that LL was the nurse who formally admitted Baby K to the neonatal unit between 6:04 and 6:10 in the morning, five minutes before she desaturated.


She agreed she’d done this but insisted it was a paper exercise but NJ pointed out that in order to fill out all of Baby K’s details into the computer she would have had to go to the cot side where all of the observation charts were kept and then return the notes back to the cot once she finished


Q: You had to go to Baby K’s cot side to carry this out.


LL: No, the notes are taken to the computer


Q: Where did you get them from?


LL: From the cot
side -I needed to take the notes to the computer


Q: I think you know where I am going with this, but I will dance the dance …


At this point, LL’s defense barrister stood up to object to the belittling and overbearing nature of Mr Johnson’s question—the judge agreed Mr Johnson should refrain from making such comments and simply get to the point. So he continued…


Q:You took them back to the cot side didn’t you?


LL: After completing the form, yes…


Q: You were at Baby K’s cot side a minute or two before she desaturated for a second time, weren’t you?


LL: I agree I have got the notes at some time -I can’t say exactly when-I do not know when I took them back


Q: You removed Baby K’s tube when you took the notes back to her cot side

LL: No, I did not

 

[esther43]

I do feel that the ridiculously overdrawn nature of this cross examination is helpful to Letby, and not helpful to the prosecution. The KC built a real momentum at the start imo, discrediting Letby completely by her answers to the handover notes issue, before moving onto the babies and showing how her story could literally change from one day to the next. Her memory seems to also change, from not recalling a baby at all to suddenly being able to recall in detail where they were before a baby collapsed. But now that momentum is broken, and when she says 'I don't recall' about something she said in court before, it no longer comes across as ridiculous because to be honest it might have been so long ago that it's no wonder she doesn't recall.

No idea how her flip flopping and memory issues come across to the jury, but people are notoriously bad at telling whether someone is lying from observing their demeanour, tone of voice, body language etc. You have to rely on the content of what they're saying, whether it makes sense, and whether it is consistent with what they've said in the past to infer lying.

I agree it's what you say rather than how you say it but I think all those inconsistencies will be represented in the summing up. And of course the defence have a long way to go to disprove the medical expert evidence.

 

[Kemug]

I really feel for this juror, and wish him/her all the best for their surgery, and a good recovery. I do hope they are not pressured in any way to make a quick recovery to get back to the trial. I think the only decent thing to do is to let that juror go, and continue with 11.

 

[Dcflag]

I really feel for this juror, and wish him/her all the best for their surgery, and a good recovery. I do hope they are not pressured in any way to make a quick recovery to get back to the trial. I think the only decent thing to do is to let that juror go, and continue with 11.

I agree. If you’re being rushed to hospital and/or surgery then you’re probably not well enough to be on the jury, and there’s no shame in that, just like some people aren’t well enough to work. It just is what it is.

I hope the juror is feeling much better in any case.

 

[Tortoise]

Here is an example of her 'not being able to recall' not helping her on the stand----
This is an excerpt from Episode 37, about Baby K:

Dr J helped deliver Baby K, and several hours later he believed he interrupted LL trying to murder her by dislodging her breathing tube so NJ asked her about this:


Q: Are you saying you weren’t with Baby K at 3:50 am when Dr J says you were standing over her when she desaturated?


LL: I have no recollection


Q: Are you saying Dr J made that up, it’s untrue?


LL: I don’t think I can comment on whether he made it up- I have no memory of being in there at that time and having a conversation with Dr J


Q: Do you dispute it?


LL: I think that’s difficult when I have no memory. I don’t recall any of that happening. I think I would remember if I had been present


Mr Johnson accused her of trying to bolster her defense by claiming that the Countess had been taking babies that were too small that should have been cared for elsewhere.


LL: I understand why she was born there, but I don’t agree it was right or had to be that way


Q: You don’t accept the agreed evidence that to transfer her mother was a greater risk than to transfer Baby J?


LL: That’s an obstretric decision-I can’t comment on it-I don’t really understand what you’re asking me


Mr Johnson reminded her that Baby K’s oxygen levels dropped and her breathing tube had to be changed three times in the hours after she was born. The 1st time was @ 10 am, the 2nd @ quarter past 6 and the 3rd just after half past 7.


LL said she had no memory of any desaturations or what happened to Baby K, but suggested her breathing tube had not been secured appropriately because she had not been sedated and had moved it herself


Mr Johnson said that timestamped computer records showed that LL was the nurse who formally admitted Baby K to the neonatal unit between 6:04 and 6:10 in the morning, five minutes before she desaturated.


She agreed she’d done this but insisted it was a paper exercise but NJ pointed out that in order to fill out all of Baby K’s details into the computer she would have had to go to the cot side where all of the observation charts were kept and then return the notes back to the cot once she finished


Q: You had to go to Baby K’s cot side to carry this out.


LL: No, the notes are taken to the computer


Q: Where did you get them from?


LL: From the cot
side -I needed to take the notes to the computer


Q: I think you know where I am going with this, but I will dance the dance …


At this point, LL’s defense barrister stood up to object to the belittling and overbearing nature of Mr Johnson’s question—the judge agreed Mr Johnson should refrain from making such comments and simply get to the point. So he continued…


Q:You took them back to the cot side didn’t you?


LL: After completing the form, yes…


Q: You were at Baby K’s cot side a minute or two before she desaturated for a second time, weren’t you?


LL: I agree I have got the notes at some time -I can’t say exactly when-I do not know when I took them back


Q: You removed Baby K’s tube when you took the notes back to her cot side

LL: No, I did not

I agree.

Here's another excerpt from that podcast -

"She also insisted she couldn't remember whether she was alone in nursery 1 with baby I when she collapsed for the second and final time. But Mr Johnson pointed to her defence statement in which she described nurse Hudson coming in to help:

NJ: "I do remember being in the nursery and she was crying and Ashleigh came in" - that clearly says you were there first doesn't it?

LL: No. She may have been in the nursery at the time and I've called her over.

NJ: What, coming from the other half of the room?

LL: Potentially yes. She could have come in from the other side of the nursery or through one of the doors, I can't be specific.

NJ: Do justice to yourself and just think about it. Are you seriously suggesting "I called for Ashleigh who came in" means Ashleigh was in there?

LL: I'm saying I don't have any memory of where Ashleigh was.

NJ: You accept this document as an accurate summary of your case?

LL: Yes.

NJ: That's the truth isn't it, you were in there at a time when baby I was crying relentlessly and nobody else was there?

LL: Potentially yes. I can't say 100%."

 

[WaxLyrical]

I get the impression that she really doesn’t remember this baby. JMO.